Jump to content

Talk:Ariel Castro kidnappings/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Page protected already?

This seems premature; IP users have made useful edits, and there hasn't been vandalism yet. from WP:SEMI: "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred". – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest asking the protecting admin directly, that would be User:Spartaz. I personally don't care for protecting a page while it is at AFD, but I think I understand the concern, pages on events like this are often a complete circus during the first 48-72 hours. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I left a note on User:Spartaz's talk page pointing here, but figured I'd see if anyone else thought it did require preemptive protection. I wouldn't be surprised either if it does need protection soon enough, if it ends up unprotected...but no reason to block IP editors without cause. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't object to any admin undoing this but policy isn't written for extreme situations and withbthe fast pace of news and editing here the risk is too high. Spartaz Humbug! 17:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hehe, I forgot that our fancy new notification system would let you know I mentioned your name... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not in AfD anymore - that was a SNOW KEEP. I did revert one IP edit that made no sense vs other sources, but with a fast moving event and media not on the same page yet, it is very understandable. I support semi-protect for now. Legacypac (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hey there. Could <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> please be added to the header of the page, please? It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 68.84.47.109 (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

In The News Nomination

The article has been nominated for the In The News section of the front page. It could use clean-up, and editors can comment on the nomination here. μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Similar cases

To add in the "See also" section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natascha_Kampusch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.243.208 (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Map

Is this map something that we can use? If so, have at it.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There's something about the notice ont he page that says "Map data © 2013 Google" that makes me suspect we can't use it in the article itself, although it could be added as an external link. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange notice at the top of this talk page

It presently says "While the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article,.." The three abductees, the child of one, and the three alleged kidnappers are all alive. How does WP:BLP not apply, especially since the title of the article refers to the victims and not the event? Edison (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed back from BLPO to BLP. The article should be about the event, and BLP applies.Martin451 (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
   The words "apply directly" may deserve replacement with something more specific, but BLP constraints clearly apply. Still, the article is not a biography article, so BLP applies bcz the central roles of at least these 7 people's lives to the article -- mainly bcz of the potential for the necessary content making direct assertions about aspects of their individual lives. Some wiki-"lawyer" may want to pick out the exact policy language that explicitly or implicitly settles which template technically applies, but the core issue is the need to be equally cautious (bio or not) about evidence for what we say, bcz of the uncontestable fact of living subjects.
   IMO, you'd probably find the BLP/BLPO distinction is that every true bio has one person as topic, and no argument needs to be made that BLP applies "directly" to that bio. In this case the topic is a complex set of events, and BLP may say that technically an argument needs to be made about how this topic raises the same issues that every bio does about reputations. (Note that "living" is important bcz of the legal doctrine that libel applies only to the living -- 'cuz "they can't hurt you when you're dead"!) For my money, the argument "Whaddarya, stoopid?" is adequate for this particular instance, so i don't care whether the tag is BLP or BLPO -- If i were called to take action requiring admin permission, i would regard the same degree of caution and restraint to be enforceable regardless of which tag were being displayed.
--Jerzy•t 07:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Not in Tremont?

The street address given in the article lies outside the boundaries of the Tremont neighborhood, as given on Tremont's Wikipedia page. I removed the reference in good faith. Wainstead (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Google maps shows 2207 Seymour Ave as being in Tremont. Also, the Tremont West Development Corporation: http://tremontwest.org/index/location lists the boundaries as "Cuyahoga River to the North and East, MetroHealth Medical Center to the South and West 25th Street and Columbus Avenue to the West." This fits squarely in the boundaries.

Also see "Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus & Michele Knight Recovered From Tremont Home, Multiple People Arrested" http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2013/05/06/reports-amanda-berry-found-alive/ Replaced it. Randi75 (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Photos

Photos reflecting these three will, when available, spruce up the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that their photos were released by the police department, can we use them? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: incorrect spelling of youngest brother's name

Please correct spelling of the 50-year-old brother's first name. It is Onil, not Oneil. You can see verification here from Cleveland's major newspaper, The Plain Dealer, which is the primary media outlet for this story. Here are other reliable sources that confirm the spelling, including New York Daily News, USA Today, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and CNN: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. The name is currently spelled incorrectly five times in the article, including in the infobox. Please fix. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, please remove the source, Breakingnews.com, used to cite the sentence: "A 52-year-old male named Ariel Castro and his two brothers, Pedro Castro, 54, and Oneil Castro, 50, were arrested on May 6, 2013, shortly after the women escaped" in the "Arrests and charges" section. It's a poor source and doesn't even link to a story. Breakingnews.com is simply a directory that links to other websites. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And in the "Pedro Castro and Oneil Castro" section, the source used, which is the Washington Post article I linked to above, even shows the correct spelling of Onil, yet the text in the article says Oneil. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The article has been updated to reflect the correct name. Also, I replaced the "breaking news reference" with a more credible reference in regards to the arrest. Mike V • Talk 02:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to you and Martin451 for the quick fixes. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Michele vs Michelle

Somehow the whole article got changed to show Michele as the first vics name. Can someone source that? Everything I've seen in RS is the normal Michelle spelling. Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There are many hits for both variations from reliable sources. It's unclear which one is correct, at least on a quick perusal; "Michelle" gets more hits on Google at the moment, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. It might be worth hunting down the original local reports, etc, to see what they say. Are there police reports or similar available from the initial disappearance? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the good RSes I found Googling [7] [8] use Michele in their titles, but Michelle in the bodies (or both.) There are many, many more hits for Michelle, and the Michele ones are mostly unrelated. So it appears Michelle is the correct spelling... Since the one ref we have with "Michele" in the title is that CBS ref that uses both spellings, I think it's safe to change to Michelle. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I read an interview with Michelle's mother in Florida (who would know). That article used Michelle as did the few pre-2013 reports I found by date searching in Google. I'm pretty sure Michelle is correct. Thanks for your help and fixes. Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Dab'ing names of persons mentioned

   I find that "Amanda Berry" is ambiguous with several other people mentioned in WP, and hope colleagues will look for similar problems with others mentioned in the case.
--Jerzy•t 04:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Amanda Berry

   Amanda Sonia Berry is mentioned as "Amanda Berry" in a few places without any link (which i'm going back to as soon as i samve this); i've started Amanda Berry (disambiguation) with her entry (and a tangential See-also entry). (The Rdr from that name may not be primary in the long run, but probably will be for at least weeks or months, IMO.)
   A mentioned actor in one Australian film that we cover is presumably not Amanda Sonia Berry, and would thus need neither linking from article, nor Dab page mention.
   I'm looking into other possibles of this name.
--Jerzy•t 04:57 &05:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to make Amanda Berry the disambiguation page itself, and remove it from the header here; the Amanda Berry from this article doesn't seem any more notable than Amanda Sonia Berry from the disambiguation page. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Certainly for the next few days this Amanda Berry is going to be the primary topic for people searching the name, so it's best to leave it as is for now. Once things start quieting down we will better be able to asses the relative notabilities. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Unexplained disappearances

removed category Category:Unexplained disappearances since it is no longer unexplained.--Darrelljon (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Locations

The article refers to Lorain Ave, W 116th and W 110th streets, please refer to a map to see that no Lorain Ave exists near those streets.

Look at this map [1] and please explain again since Lorain seems to intersect all the Streets. Legacypac (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong words - immigrants and emigrated

"Ariel Castro, 52 years old at the time of his arrest, is the son of Puerto Rican immigrants; his father, Pedro Castro, emigrated to the continental United States in 1954, first living in Pennsylvania and then moving to Cleveland.[68][69][70] His mother, Lillian Rodriguez, lives nearby in Cleveland."

Immigrant is not the right word here, as Puertoricans have been bona fide US citizens for almost 100 years now. They emigrate when they move to a country other than the United States.

Suggestion: "... son of Pedro Castro, who moved to the U.S. mainland from Yauco, Puerto Rico to Pensilvannia and then settled in Cleveland, Ohio."

Why do this? Because I have already heard too many morons dragging in Obama's immigration policy, and it clearly doesn't apply to US citizens. I mean, do Hawaiians also immigrate? --Rivera151 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to move. You don't emegrate/immigrate from one part of a country to another. Ya I know PR is a territory, but it is a US possession with US citizens.

Title

Surely there must be a better title than "2013 Ohio missing trio"?203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Something like "Offender's Name" or "Cleveland captive girls case" perhaps? Paris1127 (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with above anon. How about "[Suspect's name] kidnappings"? (but should wait until the suspect(s) have been officially charged before going that route). Kilopi (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Here is how another high profile case was handled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Smart_kidnapping emphasizing the victims name in the title. However, in this case we have three unrelated victims so the title gets pretty long. Legacypac (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I advise waiting before changing the name. It often happens that some of the early details about breaking news are incomplete or just plain wrong. In a few days it will be easier to arrive at a good title. In the meantime, we have redirects to this page from Amanda Berry, Ariel Castro, Gina DeJesus, and Michele Knight, so finding the page should not be a problem.
If anyone has a reliable source for the other two arrests or middle names of any of the above individuals, I will be happy to create redirects so that anyone searching on those phrases finds this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The current name is descriptive and works. The title should reflect what the press call the case, and when I was looking last night there did not seem to be anything specific. I would suggest using the suspects surnames (as they are brothers) but we would immediately hit a BLP issue.Martin451 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The use of the discovery date seems rather incorrect, though. Perhaps something like "2000s Cleveland abductions", since they were all abducted then. (Or "disappearances" if the sources don't fully back up abductions/kidnappings for now; I haven't read much on this.) Still a little awkward, but it's more relevant that they went missing in the early 2000s, not that they were found in 2013. ("Cleveland captive girls case" as suggested above seems decent as well; no date is really needed at all, given it spanned many years. Though, "women", since one was 20 when abducted and they were all adults by 2013.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you, a good title would be ""2000s Cleveland abductions"". --Meluuu (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The use of "girls" would be inappropriate, given the age of Knight - and perhaps even Berry - at the time of their disappearance. One option is to simply used "Kidnappings of..." or "Disappearances of..." and then the full names. Or how about "Tremont, Cleveland, Ohio kidnappings"? Nick Cooper (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Using their full names seems excessively long, but makes sense: "Disappearances of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight". I don't think we can describe these all as "kidnappings" yet, since it seems at least one may have initially gone with the men (many sources still just saying things like "went missing"), even if the long-term captivity was obviously against their wills. So using "captive" may be better, since them being held captive for so long seems to be the most notable element (and the captive part is definitely agreed upon by sources), not just that they disappeared; thus "Cleveland captive women case", modified as we both noted to use "women". I don't think we need to mention the neighborhood or state in the title. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have a slightly different take on this. Even if they willingly went with the perpetrator initially, once they started to be held against their will it becomes a kidnapping, regardless of how long they are held captive. If the girls/women's names go in the title than they should be in order of disappearance, as the article now lists them.Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with above suggestion of title "Disappearances of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight". Until charges are filed or police release a statement confirming the victims were held against their will, the article title should reflect the case file which were 3 missing persons cases (suspected of being related). I really don't like the idea of using the date they were rescued in the title. Mrjack900 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, it is best to wait a week instead of trying to figure out the best name for a fast-breaking event. Imagine that we did as suggested above and renamed it "Cleveland captive girls case", only to find that there are six more captives in Dayton. Or that (insert your favorite politician) was involved. Or that it was all a publicity stunt. Or the first indication of what later turns out to be a huge multi-state serial killer case. Just wait. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The current title is more out-of-whack than an interim title should be, in my opinion, or I'd agree with that. (Particularly calling them a "2013 missing trio", when they are women who disappeared a decade ago and were found in 2013.) Nothing wrong with discussing the title; nobody's (currently) move-warring over it or anything... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Given the strong consensus I am seeing for a better title, I withdraw my objection. It isn't the end of the world if we retitle it twice. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a good title in mind yet, want to see how things develop today. I do OPPOSE minor changes to the title like punctuation right now because it just is annoying. Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I find myself agreeing with both perspectives, that a better name will probably come from the press soon enough, but that our current page name is awful, clumsy, and inaccurate. As such I would support the idea of using the women's names in full for the time being. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree, per Mrjack900's reasoning for just reflecting "missing persons", so I withdraw my suggestion of "captive women case". The question then is, alphabetize, or list in order of disappearance as LegacyPac suggests? They're alphabetized in the lead, so I think alphabetizing in the title makes sense; putting them in the order of disappearance makes it unclear as to why they aren't alphabetized, and doesn't really add anything. So, Disappearances of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight. (And "2013 Cleveland, Ohio, reappearance of three missing women" is just...horrific, though more accurate than the old title!) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I moved it back while we discuss and have move-protected the page so that doesn't happen again. As soon as we have a consensus here any admin can move it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow, lame title from the start, but I know it's tough to find one everyone likes and is eye appealing. And now 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio? Enough commas? Can a sub title with the women's name's be used? Something like Missing Women Found 2013 Cleveland, Ohio and then under that their names? Kennvido (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Trio Kidnapping. They are definitely not missing. Doh. Chaan (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Kidnapping is only alleged at this point. Until the crime is proven, the word "kidnapping" can't be used in the title. --Crunch (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ariel Castro case is clear and concise and consistent with other cases of this nature on Wikipedia. I strongly believe this article should be moved to an "Ariel Castro case" page.Alligatorwine (talk) 4:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The press is referring to this story as the "Ariel Castro case." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligatorwine(talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
As odd as it seems, BLP protects the alleged perpetrator even more than the victims here. We cannot mention his name without mentioning that he is only a suspect, which doesn't fit into a title (it'd have to be "Case of kidnappings allegedly perpetrated by Ariel Castro" or something, which doesn't really work and would probably still be a BLP violation.) That might be a good title if he is convicted.– 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspect sketch from 2004 = Arial Castro?

I don't have the photo uploading skills but if look at the police sketch from 2004 in relation to Gina here (bottom of the page)or bigger here and a photo of the suspect today [2] the similarities are remarkable, especially when you add 9 years of age. The 2004 sketch should be added here as well as the suspect photo - ideally side by side. The sketch is FBI produced so is not copyrighted. Legacypac (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Uploaded to the commons. Gina-suspect-sketch Martin451 (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Unless we have good sources saying there is such a similarity, we can't really say there is one. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Martin. I'm trying to insert the sketch beside the related written description as it was part of the early investigation, released 6 days after the abduction and continued to be used on wanted posters. I'm sure the media will make comparisons in time, we don't need to put OR in the article. Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Nor should we rush into making changes to the article when we are in the process of discussing whether to make the changes here on the article talk page. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk)
Huh??? This discussion is about getting help inserting a 2004 FBI sketch that is 100% related to the article. That problem is all solved thanks to several other editors who pitched in. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Can an experienced user put the suspect's picture from here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/09/ariel-castro-charged-kidnap-rape-cleveland) side-by-side with the 2004 FBI sketch. The pictures are strikingly similar. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.22.77 (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/07/chilling-details-emerge-from-cleveland-of-more-women-held-captive-and-up-to-five-other-pregnancies/
  2. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320564/Ariel-Castro-pictured-Suspect-Amanda-Berry-Gina-DeJesus-Michelle-Knight-kidnap-arrested--BROTHERS.html

Proposed move to "Disappearances of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio → Disappearances of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight – The current title implies these women went missing in 2013, which is not the case, and the "trio" wording is awkward. Without the suspects being charged or more than just media reports, we should probably avoid noting "captive" or "kidnapping" in the title for now. So let's just state that those three individuals were missing persons, which is the extend of official information so far; it's perhaps not the best long-term title, but as a placeholder until more information becomes available, it's simple and properly descriptive. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I support a move away from the current title, as the "2013" is misleading. I don't oppose the suggested alternative but I'm not sure it's the best title, there doesn't seem to be a single snappy title the news reports are using (looking at Google News results searching for "Ohio") but Ohio abductions, Ohio kidnappings, Cleveland abductions, Cleveland kidnappings, Cleveland, Ohio abductions and Cleveland, Ohio kidnappings are all used and should all redirect to this article if they aren't used for the title. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not (yet) particularly concerned with the final title. I created the redirects Cleveland kidnap and Cleveland kidnapping in trying to find this article and support making more redirects. Is it WP:BOLD to make those redlink redirects Thryduulf suggests, or is it just going to make it a pain for a future page move (because a deletion would be required)? -- stillnotelf is invisible 18:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I've made the redirects above. As they redirect here and have no other edit history this article can (I believe) be moved over them by any editor. If for any reason they can't (e.g. multiple moves causing edit history) then any administrator can delete the redirect page to make way (seen {{db-move}}). Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree that the current title is incorrect and clumsy. What about three missing in O-hi-o...? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sold on this title. The story is way bigger than the Disappearances - they were found/escaped after all. It is a Kidnapping. Maybe "Kidnapping of Michele Knight, Amanda Berry and Georgina DeJesus" but than again there is still:

  • a missing girl from the neighborhood,
  • a possibly connected unsolved rape (old connection, not today)
  • a young child found in the house belonging to Amanda
  • maybe 5 (or more) additional births in the house
The proposed title vic list already excludes the 6-year-old and 5 other children. Unless you want to argue that kids are just a consequence of the kidnapping, which they are, but they are still vics in their own right.
Maybe Cleveland Multiple Kidnappings'??? Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
It's unclear if these were all initially kidnappings/abductions (one family states one of the victims may have run away)...even though they were obviously held captive, thus suggesting not using those in the title yet. It is not necessarily a kidnapping from what we know, but is a false imprisonment situation. But "2000s Cleveland false imprisonments" obviously isn't great either. (And again, it's probably best to wait for official confirmation of the situation.) I don't think we're going to come up with a snappy title that encapsulates the whole kidnapped/missing women/held captive/later freed situation, thus just mentioning they disappeared and addressing the rest in the article. I agree, it's not that great...but consider it a placeholder until we have more detailed information. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
We could also try a more encompassing title as well. Maybe "Ariel Castro kidnappings" or "Castro kidnappings" since all the victims were kidnapped and held by the same perpetrator(s)? Unless we wait for the official filing of charges and what not. Rickrollerz (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Legacypac makes an excellent point about how this is about more than the kidnapping/captivity. How about Disappearance and rescue of Cleveland women or Disappearance and rescue of Michele Knight, Amanda Berry and Georgina DeJesus? - Nbpolitico (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, I think we would have to wait for a conviction to consider that, not even just charges being filed. There's no way we can reasonably put the suspect's name in the title. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 3:04 pm, Today (UTC−4)
I would support Disappearance and rescue of Michele Knight, Amanda Berry and Georgina DeJesus, though it's a little wordy (I don't really care if it's alphabetized or in chronological order myself); just "Cleveland women" is a little too vague. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed on both counts - Nbpolitico (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Try Google searching "Cleveland Kidnappings". No question that term is related to this case by RS. I suggest adding the word Multiple because, obviously, there are other kidnappings in the city, but very few if any multiple kidnappings. It also gets away from naming some but not all the victims problem. Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
FBI (still) believe Summers abductor same man. [1]... Legacypac (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose move at this point until story has matured and name like "Cleveland Kidnappings" (or whatever) is settled on by the media over the next week or so. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    I considered making an argument of "wait for the media" myself. I didn't, because...we are the media! It's a fair bet that if Wikipedia settles early on a particular nomenclature, it will have a significant effect on coverage. -- stillnotelf is invisible 20:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Alternate suggestion since this isn't getting much traction. Just remove 2013 for now: "Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio", since they didn't disappear in 2013. It's still not great, but as a temporary name it's at least accurate, and a minimal change. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, that would be a good temporary location. I'm happy for it to be moved there if there without prejudice to a final decision if there are no objections. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree that "2013" is an unneeded qualifier, unless there was some other notable event in Cleveland's past where three abducted women suddenly re-appeared. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a move to "Disappearance and rescue of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight." That seems like a descriptive, if not snappy, title for the article. In time a snappier common name for the case may emerge from mainstream media coverage. Edison (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio" is so wrong on so many levels:

--2013 the events happened from 2002-2013 (not just 2013) in Cleveland, --we don't need to say Ohio as Cleveland is well known without the state --they are not missing, they are found. Also the child was never missing. --not a trio as there were at least 4 victims 3 woman+child(ren) preceeding comment by Legacypac

  • I think there is consensus to remove the year from the current title, if nothing else, it was very silly to put it there.Martin451 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a move to "Disappearance and rescue of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight" it is a bit cumbersome, but is descriptive and would work with the article. I suspect that other details will come up, however this title covers why this is notable, three young adults missing for a decade. Unless more victims are found alive, then there will be little reason to change this. It does not cover the name of Amanda's daughter, but that should be kept out of the article.Martin451 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Almost any change that gets the current title "2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio" done gone. Sgerbic (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support proposed title or the (and rescue) variant. I don't care for either 2013 (ignores the decade of captivity between missing and yesterday) or trio (they weren't taken as a trio, and their numbers grew as they were impregnated and gave birth). Kilopi (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest either Cleveland kidnappings which already exists, or Seymour Avenue kidnappings. Mentioning some of the victims definitely violates WP:CRIME and WP:VICTIM. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section break and suggestion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio → Berry – DeJesus – Knight confinements – There is another problem with the suggested title. "Disappearance", as suggested above, is defined as vanish; cease. But they are no longer "vanished" and haven't "ceased". "2013" is wrong as explained. "Missing" is wrong because they aren't. "Trio" is also wrong as explained above. I suggest "confinement" as the article's infobox uses this. The notability rests on their having been confined. They never really "disappeared" as such, they were still there somewhere but hidden, from their own perspectives they always existed. This is also more concise and gets the article subject's message across. 86.40.200.148 (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose "Confinements" sounds like it refers to the period when they were in labor during pregnancy. Lets avoid titter-inducing titles. Edison (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose agree with Edison on confinements. Cleveland Kidnappings it too generic (there must be other kidnappings. I now favor Cleveland Multiple Kidnapping since we have a serial/multiple kidnapper situation which is pretty unusual. Legacypac (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sources aren't prominently using the term "confinement" at all prominently so it fails WP:COMMONNAME - while we don't know yet what is it is not showing any indications of being "confinement". "2013" is certainly in error, but "trio" isn't necessarily - if we use "rescued" or something like that it would be, but it would be correct if "kidnappings" (or something similar) is the title. At the moment they are just alleged kidnappings as no charges have been brought (expected tomorrow according to at least one of the CNN referencesP, and it might not technically be kidnappings that the suspect is charged with (I have no idea what Ohio law says) so I'd hold of moving it to title like that until there is official word. Thryduulf (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Use of dashes is odd, and converting to commas wouldn't be much better; to be consistent with other titles we should have the full names, or no names. "Confinements" is kind of weird; if we're going to describe the captivity in a generic manner, "false imprisonment" is the most logical wording, yet also reads oddly. As for "Cleveland Multiple Kidnapping", there is no reason to use "multiple". If we are describing multiple kidnappings, we would simple pluralize it as such: "Cleveland kidnappings". But I'm still not convinced we should describe these as kidnappings just yet per reasoning given in the previous section; wait for official sources to be available. I think we have reasonable consensus that "2013" should go, so perhaps an admin could remove that bit for now since the page is move-protected. Agree "trio" is kind of weird and not great, but not technically incorrect (so it's acceptable for a temporary title, and we have no consensus on what to replace it with.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Wow, that's awful. Sorry. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Cleveland Kidnappings, while plural, does not suggest an event (or series of related events), rather it suggests a list of kidnappings in Cleveland generically to me. We need to differentiate - by date, names, or a word like "multiple" Legacypac (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
In that case, I think something like "2000s Cleveland kidnappings" or "Cleveland kidnappings case/incident" makes more sense. "Cleveland multiple kidnappings" also does not suggest a series of related events to me. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Daughter slashed granddaughter's neck

How do we want to handle this chilling connected story? "Several media outlets also report that a younger daughter, Emily Castro, is in an Indiana prison for slashing the throat of her then-11-month-old daughter in 2008. Indiana prison records confirm Emily Castro is currently serving 25 years for attempted murder."

Shouldn't be included; not directly related, unless there's some suggestion her father was involved in that crime. Robofish (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
[9] [10] the link does not seem conclusive, and there is not reason at the moment to include it.Martin451 (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's look at the sequence (which is spread over the article right now):
  • 2002 Girl #1 disappears
  • 2003 Girl #2 disappears
  • 2004 Girl #3 disappears
  • 2005 beats up and threatens to kill ex wife, and to quote her lawyer, Castro "frequently abducts (his) daughters and keeps them from mother"
  • 2007 Ashley Summers disappears (thought by FBI to be same suspect)
  • 2008 one of Castro's daughters attempts to murder her child

Legacypac (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the point of including every crime committed by any relative. (Is Fidel a distant cousin?) Edison (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
   Castro is an extremely common name, probably dating back before Spanish, Portuguese, and Catalan became separate, and probably reflected the bearer or their father working inside the castle walls -- so the question is probably like asking if two people named "Brown", or "Smith", are related.
--Jerzy•t 07:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not our job to speculate on stuff like this. Let the media play their games. They have deadlines. They have space and airtime to fill. We don't. We report the more significant things that multiple parts of the more reliable sector of the media say, preferably well after the dust has settled. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you actually believe we should consider adding the crimes of a suspect's relative that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article? Seriously? Absolutely not! Your description that the daughter's crime is "connected" to this article is complete nonsense. Sorry. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you actually think that the status of the suspects own 5 children and grandchildren is not relevant to the bio of someone who nearly killed his wife, kidnapped his own children, while also kidnapping at least 3 young ladies and having children with them? Seriously? Legacypac (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's precisely what I know, not think. This has nothing to do with my opinion, but about policy. "The status of the suspects own 5 children and grandchildren"? Wow, are you even being serious? If so, then you are exhibiting a complete failure to understand the policies regarding content notability and relevance, and BLPs. And apparently, you don't even understand what the subject of this article is. Please educate yourself. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin move request: remove "2013" from title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{edit semi-protected}} I think we have reasonable consensus to get rid of "2013", since that part doesn't logically fit and makes the title incorrect. There's obviously no consensus on further edits yet, but they aren't problematic in the same fashion. It may be some time before we get to a real consensus on a new title, so it makes sense to make this minor fix to make the title a bit less horrid for now. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Any objections to that change? (Do not attempt a cut-and-paste move; this calls for a true rename.)
--Jerzy•t 05:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The entire title needs changed, but removing the 2013 from the current title would make it even worse. As the title stands, the article falsely implies to any reader who isn't aware of the story that the three people are currently missing; it gives no indication that they are no longer missing. A better title would be something like 2013 rescue of three kidnapped Cleveland females. ("Ohio" is unneeded in the title since Cleveland is a major metropolitan city; if it were Miami, we wouldn't say "Miami, Florida" in the title.) I wouldn't object if the "2013" wasn't included in my suggested title because it's highly unlikely that this exact situation will ever happen again (three kidnapped Cleveland females being rescued). :p But my suggested title includes the four key points: rescue, kidnap, Cleveland, and three females. ;) For the record, I use "females" instead of girls or women because two of them were teens when they were taken but are now adults. I just noticed the above thread about moving the article. And I want to rethink the best title. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC) 06:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Please see the previous sections to discuss changing the title entirely... As far as the current title goes, the problem with "2013" is that it implies that they're a trio that went missing in 2013. Of course the title is still problematic with that gone, but less so; I don't see how it makes it worse. (Can you explain why that's the case?) If anything, it makes it more generic, and the reader gets to look at the article to figure out the ambiguity, instead of incorrectly reading about a supposed missing trio of women from 2013. I think there's reasonable consensus to remove "2013" in the previous section (you're the first direct objection I've seen to that change, and keep in mind it's just to make the temporary title a bit better), though that's up to an admin to sort out due to the move protection... (As for your other points, see discussion above.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I think Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio would be worse because, again, it's totally misleading (they're not missing) and it gives no time context with regard to the (misleading) title. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
They're also not missing now in 2013, though...and the time context it gives is incorrect, which seems worse to me than being vague. (The lead gives the specifics.) Giving no date just says they were a trio that was missing at some point in time; since we write in encyclopedic tone, that doesn't imply being currently missing. "2013" seems worse in that respect, since it both implies it being more current, and that the event happened in 2013, which is wrong. I agree the thing is ugly either way...but unfortunately we don't have consensus to do much more at this point. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
There's really no point in going back and forth on this. We just disagree (like the great song lol). In any case, I think the more important point is that it would just be disruptive to mess around with the title while there is an active discussion about a permanent move taking place. It'll just create one battle on top of another. Therefore, I would let the move discussion above play out and see what results from that. I would suggest that you remove the edit request template and just let this thread remain as a regular discussion. I think you have almost no chance of getting someone to make this change anyway. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, the only reason I made the request is that there was consensus to do so, since several people above had voiced agreement on dropping the "2013"; I'll let an admin sort out whether or not reasonable consensus does exist given the reasoning here and above. (Normally I'd agree that it's disruptive to the renaming process, and a waste of time, but in this case the title is simply wrong with that bit included.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The title would be awful with or without the 2013, so I think a new awful title would be worse than a current awful title. Haha. As I said in the move thread above, I think the title should simply be Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michele Knight or Kidnappings of three Cleveland females. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that part we agree on; it's horrid either way. :) I proposed the minor change since the move discussion looks like it will be protracted, with no clear support for much of anything but dropping 2013 (before your objection) and for dropping Ohio (but that's not important since it's just redundant, not incorrect.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I {{tl}}ed the request, so it doesn't clutter up the edit request list. I still think we have reasonable consensus to change it; of course we're !voting, and not to diminish 76.189.109.155's objection, but I count a good half-dozen concurrences on the change, so if an admin does feel there's sufficient consensus given the reasoning, please do feel free to move it... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Just play this video. Or this version. It will make you feel better. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Couldn't it just be called 2013 Rescue of Abducted Cleveland, Ohio Women? Or something like thatFjf1085 (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
That's not perfect as the rescue itself is not the main focus of the article rather the length of time between abduction and rescue and anything that happened during that time is what is notable; and I'm still wary of calling it an abduction in advance of formal charges. The capitalisation is incorrect as well, but that's trivial. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Fjf1085... first, we use the word kidnap, not abduction. But beyond that, the title does not need to allude to the "rescue" because the rescue is simply a part of the overall kidnapping incident. For example, the article about Elizabeth Smart is simply Elizabeth Smart kidnapping, not Elizabeth Smart rescue and abduction. And it's Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, not Kidnapping and rescue of Jaycee Lee Dugard. See what I'm saying? :) That is why my suggested titles are Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michele Knight or Kidnappings of three Cleveland females. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely, I'm sure as soon as something else happens this will die down. Honestly normally I would have just ignored the mistake but over the last year or so I've been making minor edits and getting more comfortable making them so I figured I'd give it a try... also sorry to 2001:db8 for apparently blanking out the comment you posted in reply to this to me... I'm not sure what exactly happend. I think you replied so quickly I some how messed it...again new to making anything more than a few minor edits, so I'm sorry.Fjf1085 (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. I'm unilaterally closing this discussion since it's redundant to the current renaming discussion. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request - "Other family members" section

Wow, did anyone see the "Other family members" section? That needs to be removed immediately. Talk about a gigantic BLP violation. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. The entire section is clearly inappropriate, but the second third paragraph is outrageously inappropriate (about one of the suspects' daughters committing a completely unrelated crime, being in prison, and trying to commit suicide). Are you kidding me? Please, get that entire paragraph of nonsense and BLP violations out of this article. This is an encylopedia article about a specific subject; not a newspaper covering everything and anything even if it has nothing directly to do with the subject. An "Other family members" section?!? I cannot believe it's in there and no one's removed it yet. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree about the whole section. I certainly agree about the third (not second) paragraph about the daughter in prison. It's gone. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot HiLo. Much appreciated. But again, I contend that the entire section should be removed since content about non-notable family members - e.g. private citizens - of an alleged perpetrator is still highly inappropriate, particularly when the content has absolutely nothing to do with the crime that the article is about. Btw, nice catch... I meant to say "third" paragraph, not second. I struck and corrected it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the entire section as a clear BLPVIO. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Roger! 76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

These removals are innapropriate unless you can cite something more precise than the broad brush statements above. 1. There is zero BLP problem with describing the crimes and actions of a CONVICTED felon. 2. Someone removed basic info - the fact the suspect has kids of his own. 3. The article by the son is reverent as it shows connections between suspect and victim families and the son has same name. Legacypac (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I do think that it would be good to understand better the basis of the claim by the IP and others suggesting deletion, preferably by quoting specific support in a guideline.Epeefleche (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Discussion of the son's article is clearly relevant and should be included (to the extent supported by sources obviously). That a relative of a [i]suspect[/i] (who hasn't been charged with anything at this point) committed an unrelated crime really isn't relevant here and should not be included unless there is a reliable, official source discussing its relevance to this crime. Including it otherwise gives the impression of guilt by association - a BLP violation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The issue with the daughter who is in prison is whether it is relevant, and I don't think it is, and does not need to be included. The son who interview the mother of DeJesus, and the daughter who was with DeJesus just before DeJesus vanished are relevant. The third daughter does not need to be mentioned by name, although it would not violate BLP to say she exists.Martin451 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Impression of guilt by association on who? Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
          • By including the details of the unrelated crime by the relative it feels to me like we are saying that because they are in prison for violent crime it means he must be guilty of something similar. Giving people that impression is as much a BLP violation than if we explicitly said it. Castro has not even been charged yet, let alone stood trial. Unless and until he is convicted we must be careful not to imply guilt. If you don't understand why we need to be careufl, read up about what happened to Christopher Jeffreys (related article Murder of Joanna Yeates, but for the whole story you'll need to read articles elsewhere, [11] is a good resource). Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacypac, I suggest you fully educate yourself on WP:BLP. We do not add content about someone to an article simply because they are a convicted felon. First, the content needs to be notable. And second, and most importantly, it needs to be relevant to the subject. What does the daughter's crime have to do with this crime?? Answer: nothing! Are we going to add content about every crime that every relative of the suspects ever committed? Saying "There is zero BLP problem with describing the crimes and actions of a CONVICTED felon" is one of the most outrageous, out-of-context comments I've seen in a long time. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I also suggest you read the entire BLP policy section titled "Presumption in favor of privacy". 76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The daughter is a separate person, and BLP applies to her. Just because she is convicted does not mean BLP no longer applies. There is no reason to include this, we are no a tabloid paper.Martin451 (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that the crimes of the daughter are not relevant to this subject. I'm sure I could do my own WP:OR speculation about Nature versus nurture and how it applies here, but until a reliable source goes there there is no reason for us to include this (sensationalist) content. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I am well versed in BLP policy. Referencing "privacy" is incorrect as nothing in that section applies here that I can see. NOT BLPCRIME (she was convicted). BLP on the convicted daughter does not stop us from adding it here. There are specific allegations of abuse against this daughter and her siblings by a man accused of kidnapping/rape etc. Daughter went on to slit the throat of her own daughter while her father held captives in him house. That is notable and connected to the subject of this article. This is why major news orgs are reporting the information together as connected. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Beeblerox and Martin, thank you! Please, get rid of that third paragraph about the daughter's conviction and past suicide attempt immediately. It's outrageously inappropriate. And I think any editors who add crap content like that should be blocked. As far as the rest of the content in that family members section, we can discuss that further. But the third paragraph needs to go now. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Legacyac, you are completely out of touch with BLP policy. The fact that the daughter was convicted of a crime is absolutely meaningless to this article. You seriously don't understand this? You really are on the verge of needing to be blocked if you add any content like that. Your comments are unbelievably irresponsible. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I see that someone has removed that outrageously inappropriate third paragraph with this edit. Good! No one should add it back without clear consensus, which I highly doubt you would ever achieve. The remainder of the content in the family members section can still be discussed. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Legacypac, do you even understand what the subject of this article is? Apparently not. It's about the kidnapping of three females, which includes the arrests of three suspects. We do not start looking down the family tree of a suspect for any past crimes by a relative of the suspect that have absolutely nothing to do with this crime. And while major news organziations are of course reporting on all aspects of the story, whether they are directly related to the crime or not, we are not a newspaper. This is an encyclopedia, with policies and guidelines about notability, relevance, and living people, etc. Now please, stop all this nonsense. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Do not threaten me and try to be civil. This discussion needs to be about how to best craft the article. This poorly named article is about the kidnapping and includes biographies of the suspects (as these articles usually do). The question is - does the conviction for attempted murder by the biography subject's daughter, (the same daughter he is alleged to have abused, kidnapped and threatened to kill) represent a relevant detail in the subject's biography? Is there a wikipolicy that prevents the inclusion of this information. If you want to have a debate, please stick to how to improve the article.Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
No, of course it doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Legacypac, please provide diffs which support your claim that I "threatened" you. And your allegation of incivility is simply a distraction from the important issues being discussed here. Once again, you have shown your failure to understand what the subject of this article is. It's also quite telling that you refuse to answer why the past crimes (and suicide attempt) of a suspect's daughter is relevant to this crime. Please, educate yourself about content notability and relevance, and BLP policy. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The policy is WP:RELEVANT. It is relevant to this article to note that it has been alleged Castro abused, kidnapped and threatened to kill his daughter, because he is one of the subjects of this article and that is biographical information about him. It is not relevant to include his daughter's crimes because that is biographical information about her and she is not a subject of this article. If a reliable source significantly links his daughter's crimes to her father's alleged kidnapping of these three women then it might become relevant to the reporting of possible motives (or however it is linked). As far as I am aware no reliable source has done this. If his daughter were notable then it would be appropriate to mention that they are related and what she is notable for with a link to her article where mention of her crimes would be relevant, however she is not notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

76.189.109.155 please tone down your language, this is not a battleground and editors are required to remain civil and comment on the content not the contributor. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If you feel I have said something that crosses the line of civility, please provide the diffs or quotes to support that allegation. Or report it at AN/I. If you think anything I've said was beyond civil, perhaps I should introduce you to AndyTheGrump. Right, Andy? Haha. In any case, thanks for supporting my views about the content relating to the daughter. It's honestly shocking that that content was ever in the article. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
To be clear there is nothing I think you have said that crosses the line. The tone of your comments regarding Legacypac's "failure to understand" though was getting very close to it. Further discussion of this (if you desire any) should probably move to one of our talk pages. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thryduulf, thanks for clarifying. But "Failure to understand"? That's it? Haha. I'm sorry, but that was simply an observation based on his comments with regard to policy. I really do need to introduce you to Andy. By comparison, I'm as tame as they come. On the incivility scale, I'd put my comments at a 2 (out of 10). Maybe a 3. :p 76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I answered your concerns repeatedly, yet you accuse me of failing to answer and say ""You really are on the verge of needing to be blocked if you add any content like that". I'll let your own words speak for you-everyone can read them. Yes, I am offended at your comments directed my way. Please stay off my talk page and do not engage in discussion with me ever again. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Stay off your talk page? Uh, I've never been on your talk page. Haha. If you believe otherwise, please show us a diff of me being on your talk page. And you never answered the question. But that's fine; the matter is resolved. Consensus was solidly against your view. Btw, I liked your comment in the above thread regarding the proposed move. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Daughter's name

According to the BBC [12] Amanda Berry's daughter has been named by police, so it is no longer accurate to describe her as "unnamed" (infobox) or "not publicly named" (Discovery and aftermath section). If we choose to continue not using her name here (and there are arguments both ways) we need to come up with an alternative phrasing. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There is not reason to include the name of the daughter, it is best left out.Martin451 (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hence why I didn't just add it, but she has been named so to continue to say otherwise is inaccurate. Meaning we need some other way of phrasing it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I just removed all references to her being unnamed or her name not being known, just leaving her name unstated. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit inserting the name. I believe WP:BLPNAME covers not including the daughter's name; unlike the three women, she obviously hasn't been in the news for a decade. (There also may be arguments to be made for not including her name due to being a minor, but I don't it's even necessary to consider those to exclude it.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Tweeking the Categories.

Following the setup on other entries in Category:Kidnapped American children, I believe that both the Category:Kidnapped American children and Category:Children kept in captivity should be removed from this article and added to the Amanda Barry and Gina DeJesus redirect pages. I thought that I should propose this here to see if it gets any comments. If it doesn't, will do so tomorrow (5/9).Naraht (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that meets the common sense test. It will just require them to hit another button with a another click to get into this page of text, as the redirect page has none. And as far as outward movement from readers who want to see who else is in that category ... the vast majority of readers would not see the cat if it is on the redirect page.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm *not* talking about removing the entries in the "See Also" that actually have the first colon in them, but rather then entry that puts 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio in the Category. This entry shouldn't be in the category, the two named children should be.Naraht (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Content categories are for content pages, not redirects. This is where they are discussed, this is where relevant categories should be. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look at Category:Kidnapped American children, the number of entries in there which are redirects.Naraht (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
just because others have made an error does not mean we have to repeat it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category; I believe this guideline indicates categorizing these redirects is perfectly acceptable. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

References/facts

Many of the facts and refrences on this page are not accurate. For example, reference 38 claims that the girls were severely dehyrated among other things when they got to the medical center, however, when one actually reads the source, the people at the medical center refused to comment on their condition. I will be modifying that section to reflect the correct information. Also source 40 which states the women had multiple miscarriages is speculation and unsubstantiated claims by an unnamed police source. So, I will be modifying that section to reflect it's unconfirmed nature. I encourage everyone else to check the references of the facts in this article because if the random two that I checked are any indication there are numerous problems with this article.Fjf1085 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything I added was accurately sourced when I added it. If something seemed like it might change I have been careful to couch the statement by citing the source in words. There are several problems happening though. Some editors like to pare down the text so "a police source reported xyz" becomes "xyz" like it is a hard fact when it was actually an unconfirmed report. Than the news sources update or change their pages on us. So watch what the text says and please re-source anything that seems correct but is not reflected in the news source that may have changed its url since used here. Legacypac (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I could see how that would happen, people trying to make the text more streamlined but then losing critical details in the process. It's unfortunate more people don't have a better grasp of language. I will also continue to monitor news sources in case the information changes. It may very well be that they were dehydrated but until that is confirmed somewhere it's not right to include that. I appreciate the tips and feedback! Fjf1085 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I imagine when a week or so has passed it will be considerably easier to make the article orderly and accurate, the first couple days of something like this are always a mess and misinformation always seems to creep in one way or another. When the next "big news" story breaks things should calm down here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely, I'm sure as soon as something else happens this will die down. Honestly normally I would have just ignored the mistake but over the last year or so I've been making minor edits and getting more comfortable making them so I figured I'd give it a try.Fjf1085 (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Please do fix anything you see rather than ignoring it, and don't worry about doing anything wrong (someone will probably revert you if so :). One major thing is that breaking-news sources change (even from the same URL); I had to re-source a few things while copyediting this earlier, because even though Google showed the articles with the required information, the original URLs had changed! So it's not just editor sloppiness (though that definitely occurs), but sources changing and moving... It is pretty impossible to keep this type of article properly sourced and updated initially; really, I'd personally be happier if we waited on them, but I edit them because I know they will exist in any case, so may as well try to keep them accurate and such. So be bold and fix things that are broken! No need to seek guidance if something is obviously wrong. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: two of the brothers not charged

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Edit request has been answered. Whether the events should be described as "kidnappings" is being discussed at #Let's try again: "Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight". I'm closing this section to keep the discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a live news conference right now and the Cleveland police just announced that Pedro and Onil Castro will not be charged, that there's no evidence they had any involvement in the kidnappings, and they will be released from police custody soon. Ariel Casto is the only one who will be charged. Pedro and Onil are currently being held on issues that are totally unrelated to the kidnappings. Their names need to be removed from the article. At the news conference, the police said the only reason they arrested Pedro and Onil is because they happened to be with Ariel when he was found; so they took them in based on "probable cause". See this article just posted by The Plain Dealer, Cleveland's major newspaper. It says, "City Prosecutor Victor Perez said there was no reason to believe the brothers (Pedro and Onil) were involved." This is a perfect example of why BLP policy with regard to suspects in custody but not convicted (or even charged) must be followed! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like User:Martin451 quickly took care of this. Since Ariel Castro has now been charged with kidnappings per that ref, I think it's reasonable to actually use "kidnappings" in the title (I'll amend the proposal above with...yet another section.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
No. Until someone is convicted of kidnappings, we cannot refer to them as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, 2001. The article about Elizabeth Smart is simply Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. And the one for Jaycee Lee Dugard is simply Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. So the title this article should be Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michele Knight. It's standard protocol and has clear precedence. And Andy, you're comparing apples to oranges. No one's saying to call Ariel Castro a kidnapper because, of course, he hasn't been convicted. However, the article title must surely have the word kidnapping because that is factually what it is, a kidnapping. This is a fact not in dispute. The three females were kidnapped. The only thing legally undetermined is: who kidnapped them. The legal system will decide that. ;) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
You're stealing my exact thoughts and edit conflicting me with them. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, discuss in the move proposal above. Of course, we cannot directly state that this suspect kidnapped the women in question...but we can refer to the fact that they were kidnapped, since that is now the official description of what happened to them. If the suspect is not convicted, the victims are still women who were kidnapped; it has no bearing on his conviction status. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) again. We do not need a conviction to call them kidnappings but we would need a conviction to name a kidnapper.Martin451 (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
2001 (and Martin)... Haha, great minds think alike. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Nope. There is no such thing as an "official description of what happened". Until someone is convicted of the crime of kidnapping, we cannot state as fact that a kidnapping took place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I too agree that we should call the events kidnappings but not call the suspect a kidnapper. A suspect has been charged with kidnapping, therefore the authorities have officially stated that a kidnapping took place. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Andy, by your logic we should should not title an article with murder until someone is convicted of the murder. Haha. As we're all telling you, it is a fact that they were kidnapped; that's not in dispute. The only part not legally determined is if Castro will be convicted. So, yes, it's a kidnapping. Yes, Castro is the suspect. And, no, Castro has not been convicted. ;) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
What anyone 'supports', or 'agrees with' is completely irrelevant. Any assertion as fact that a kidnapping took place is a violation of WP:BLP policy unless and until someone is convicted of kidnapping. WP:BLP policy is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Andy, are you partying right now? Be honest. :p 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Be civil. Andy is bringing up what he believes to be a valid BLP issue, as I hope anyone who has a BLP concern would do. We err on the side of caution with BLP, even if the BLP issue seems incorrect to some of us. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Andy knows I'm just joking with him in a friendly manner, thus the ":p" at the end of my comment. You are obviously unaware that Andy has acknowledged in the past of editing while, er, having fun. So chill out, 2001. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We should mention that three people were arrested

Although obviously we should not go into detail about them, we should mention that three people were arrested and that two people were released without charges related to the kidnapping. Their names will be associated with this case and it is a good thing to explicitly note this and their innocence. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not object to mentioning the fact that Ariel's two brothers were initially taken into to custody (and never charged), but their names should absolutely not be included in the article. Yes, their names are obviously associated with the case right now, but their names will fade from memory pretty quickly. They're private citizens who, per the police, were taken into custody solely because they happened to be with Ariel when he was found. The police said at the news conference today that the women never even mentioned the brothers; only Ariel. Therefore, the names of the two brothers must not be re-added to the article. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. They are inextricably linked with this and associating their names with an explicit statement of innocence is responsible journalism, rather than pretending we never named them in the first place. Obviously though I'll not add the names without consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not think we should explicitly name them. I think it would suffice to note that two of Castro's brothers were initially arrested, then released; that should provide enough context without using their names. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thryduult... Wow, "inextricably linked"? Let's not go overboard. :p Yes, right now they're obviously known because their names and photos were prematurely plastered all over the media, but they won't be remembered for long. But that's not what's most important here as we consider BLP policy. They are private citizens who the police have now confirmed had nothing to do with the crime. Therefore, it is our duty per policy to make sure that we do not "inextricably link" them to this crime by including their names in the article. It's fine to say that two of Ariel Castro's brothers were intially taken into custody, but to actually state their names would be wrong. As this investigation and legal process moves forward, the two brothers will fade away quickly from the story, as it should be. I do give you credit for thinking about this, though. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems appropriate to follow mainstream media, who are saying that the two other brothers were arrested, but that the prosecutor said they had no role in the crimes. They don't have to be explicitly named at this point. If they are not mentioned at all, their possible guilt is left up in the air, after everyone in the world who follows sensational news, or who reads about breaking news in Wikipedia, read yesterday that the other two were likely culprits. Just pretending now that they do not exist and were not arrested ay not be the best interpretation of BLP, since it does not unring the bell. Not mentioning them does not provide balanced coverage, and fails to give due weight to the amnount of coverage they are still receiving in reliable news sources and official statements from law enforcement. Edison (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
"Their possible guilt is left up in the air"? Not at all. Obviously, there would be nothing left up in the air if the article says something like, "Castro's two brothers were also initially taken into custody the day the women were freed, but they were released a few days later after police announced that they had no involvement in the kidnappings." ;) Clean, simple, and factual. And without unnecessarily tying them forever to this horrible crime by including their name in an encylopedia article about it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't think anyone is proposing not to include them; rather, whether to use their names or not. So we can probably go ahead and include them, just mentioning that two of Castro's brothers were also arrested, while discussion over using their full names proceeds. If they stay in the media then perhaps, but it seems unlikely. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I used 76.189.109.155's wording, modifying it a bit so the timeline isn't confusing. But it's unclear when the other brothers were released (May 7 or May 8?) Also, there appear to be conflicting refs for when they were all arrested in the first place; was it May 6 as stated, or May 7? (Google for "castro arrest may 6" and "may 7"...there are a bunch of refs for both! I don't have time to sort through the refs right now to try to figure out which is right, so I left it as May 6.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
2001, nice job. All three were arrested the day the girls were freed. The precise date the two brothers were released is unnecessary; "a few days later" is acceptable context. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - section title needs to be singular

Now that there is only one suspect, the section heading "Suspects backgrounds" needs to be changed to "Suspect's background". Better yet, the heading should just simply be "Suspect". Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, my friend. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Fix

The article states: "One of the suspects is believed by police to have fathered Berry's 6-year-old girl." This was added in, when there were three suspects. Now, there is only one suspect. However, is Ariel Castro himself suspected of fathering the baby? Or did one of the other two brothers father the child? This needs to be clarified. And, either way, the sentence needs to be reworded, since there is only one suspect. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Found a ref stating that Ariel Castro is suspected, not just one of the initial three. And I took out his name and the grandmother's name from that part, since it seemed to be a possible BLP issue to name the alleged grandmother in particular. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Good cath Joseph. The police have made it abundantly clear that the two brothers had absolutely nothing to do with the kidnappings, so of course they did not father the child. Yes, it is being reported that Ariel is the suspected father of the child. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
A reader might wonder who the other two guys were, now that Wikipedia editors have determined that the two arrested and freed brothers are absolutely innocent of any role in the abductions and abuse. The article presently says: "Women who lived in a neighborhood apartment building said they called police because they saw three young girls crawling on all fours naked with dog leashes around their necks in the backyard, as three men controlled them.[44] " The one brother who has been arrested had the ability to look like three, or are there two unknown subjects, or is the neighbor a liar? Edison (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking the exact same thing! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. But it's vital that we only go by what we know for sure via reliable sources. And what we now know for sure is that the police said the two brothers were not involved in the kidnappings and therefore will not be charged. Keep in mind, those women in the neighborhood gave no names. We need to be very careful and not get ahead of ourselves. And we certainly must not play police detectives. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I removed the "three men" part. It doesn't really make sense unless they were either the other brothers, or other suspects that haven't been named...the rest of the statement seems fine without it. (Then again, we're linking to a ref that does name the other brothers; but we're linking to a lot of refs like that currently. More evidence that we need to note the other two initial suspects, but of course not by name.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
There are a bunch of reports from individuals about naked women, kids in windows, multiple kids, screaming etc and calling the police. Since police deny getting these calls, and had police got a call about naked women on a chain in the yard they surely would have checked the house, these reports may be just people getting exciting and making sh!t up to get on TV. I just don't know, but giving these stories much wait seems wrong to me. ~(gotta love the alleged grandmother phrase above made me laugh )Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, some of that stuff seems pretty whacky; it's sourced, but it definitely needs cleanup. I just ce'd my way through the article, but that was the one bit that didn't seem worthwhile to go to the hassle of sorting out, since it's such a weird mess. (And hey, allegations of someone being a grandmother are serious business! :) Though I assume you get the point, not to single the grandmother out for being the mother of the suspect.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This article, based on an unpublished police report of interviews of the victims makes it clear that some of the neighbors reports are absolute BS. [2] Key points include: Women were chained in bsmt at first, but let upstairs after a while. Only left house 2x, in disguise, to go to garage. They never met brothers. So naked women chained in backyard controlled by three men is complete BS - someone trying to get on TV. Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If I were to conjecture, I would agree with you. But if I were to conjecture, I could also imagine not reporting the worst that happened to me if I were a hostage. If I were to not conjecture ... I would be a wp editor, just reflecting RSs ... ;) .--Epeefleche (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/05/fbi_agents_at_seymour_avenue_h.html
  2. ^ http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/05/ariel_castro_charged_with_4_co.html

Infobox

The infobox has a "beginning date" of August 22, 2002. This implies that all of the victims were abducted on the same day (which they were not). This needs to be fixed or clarified. Any suggestions? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it implies that at all. To me, it simply says when the subject began. I believe it's correct as-is. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's exactly my point. The subject/title – at least, currently – is "missing trio". So, the infobox implies that this missing trio went missing on August 22, 2002. What do others think? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)×2 I agree with 76.189, it implies only that the kidnappings began on that date not that they all happened on that date. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Thryduulf, you said it much better than me. Haha. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The word 'trio' is ambiguous. Someone not familiar with the subject might think the three were a trio who went missing at the same time, as opposed to separate kidnapees becoming a trio over the course of years. I'm hoping whatever future title is chosen won't have this word. Fletcher (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ariel_Castro_kidnappings/Archive_1&oldid=1076870122"